> Do I need to go further?
> Do I need to go further? Yes, I think you do. AstroDust's reply is worth bearing in mind too [1]. If you're going to store confidential information (which is hard to avoid being a school) then you should be responsible for securing it adequately. This seems more than possible using current technology and only a small amount of education for staff. When your security has been shown _repeatedly_ to be inadequate to protect against _children_ then I really don't think the school is taking their responsibilities seriously. Edit: Lets spin this another way. I keep all the cleaning and other dangerous chemicals in a cupboard. If the lock is broken and a child manages to hurt themselves, then it doesn't really matter if the cupboard is out-of-bounds; I've still neglected my duty of care and I'm going to get into trouble. If months later I've still not bothered fixing the lock and another child gets hurt, then the only person responsible should be me. Children are expected to break the rules and do silly things, whether they expect it to end badly or not; this is why we classify them as children and usually expect them to need supervision. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9408704
Posted by BuildTheRobots on Apr 20, 2015, 4:02 PM
Tags
Related issues
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.7,000 issues0 comments
reliability (EdTech)
I frankly find the situation around UB puzzling.
I think it depends a little on how and where you work.
Self modifying has some sneaky failure modes with modern CPUs.
> Ban phones from class.
Coolify v5.x
Are you talking about a technical problem, or a conceptual problem?
This is not uncommon in the more blue-collar businesses.
> I wonder though, do people not strace programs any more?
> Do I need to go further?
> Do I need to go further? Yes, I think you do. AstroDust's reply is worth bearing in mind too [1]. If you're going to store confidential information (which is hard to avoid being a school) then you should be responsible for securing it adequately. This seems more than possible using current technology and only a small amount of education for staff. When your security has been shown _repeatedly_ to be inadequate to protect against _children_ then I really don't think the school is taking their responsibilities seriously. Edit: Lets spin this another way. I keep all the cleaning and other dangerous chemicals in a cupboard. If the lock is broken and a child manages to hurt themselves, then it doesn't really matter if the cupboard is out-of-bounds; I've still neglected my duty of care and I'm going to get into trouble. If months later I've still not bothered fixing the lock and another child gets hurt, then the only person responsible should be me. Children are expected to break the rules and do silly things, whether they expect it to end badly or not; this is why we classify them as children and usually expect them to need supervision. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9408704
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.